Leadership and Organisational Change - Term Paper Example

Table of Contents 0.Introduction 2 2.0.Change management 2 3.0.Change Management Process 4 4.0.The Change initiative 6 5.0.Leadership of the changeinitiative 6 5.1.Communicating need for change 7 5.2.Mobilization of others 9 5.3.Evaluating the change process 10 6.0.Resistance to the change initiative 11 7.0.Recommendations for the future 13 8.0.Conclusion 14 9.0.References 16 1.0. Introduction This paper will outline and critically evaluate the leadership of a recent change initiative in an own organization while assessing the resistance that was offered to that change initiative and making recommendations for improving the implementation of change in similar circumstances in the future. This paper will draw from practical examples to provide illustrations for the case of change initiatives in the organization while referring to relevant literature to support the analysis. Furthermore, this paper will compare the leadership of change in the organization to research findings while benchmarking examples of successful practice in other businesses. 2.0. Change management Change management refers to the used by organizational decision makers to reposition their workforces, teams and the organization to a desired future state in response to the changes in their environment (Beugelsdijk, Slangen, & Marco 2002, p.311). Change management is a crucial organizational practice today, particularly due to the rapid and comprehensive changes taking place in the global business environment, which require that organizations respond fast and effectively for them to survive competition in the highly complex and dynamic global business climate (Oswick, Grant, Michelson & Wailes 2005, p.384). Change is inevitable at the organizational level since organizations need to adapt both in parts and in whole to respond effectively to the increasing operational challenges or risk running losses and extinction altogether (Fernandez & Rainey 2006, p.168). The status quo or the conventional ways of doing things can no longer suffice in the present global business conditions since a huge proportion of, if not all, the conventional business models have been rendered ineffective and impractical amid the present complex challenges. In that respect, organizations are increasingly facing the dire challenge of implementing rapid and comprehensive change initiatives to realign themselves to the prevailing conditions in order to continue operating profitably and winning competition (Shepard 2003, p.92). Effective change management entails a careful and thoughtful planning as well as cautious implementation that is built on comprehensive consultation and involvement of all the people that are going to be affected by the proposed change to avoid generating high opportunity and process costs that eventually outweigh the benefits of change (Jacobs, Arjen & Christe-Zeyse 2013, p.722). The change process is a delicate and most challenging one since people are often wary of and afraid of change and would rather stick to their old, usual ways of doing things to avoid anxieties that often arise due to the uncertainties that change brings. In that case, effective organizational change initiatives must be aligned to the existing organizational culture to help lift the stress and anxiety brought about by change (Galpin 1996, p.84). In as much as organizational change is inevitable, it must always be realistic, achievable, as well as measurable but above all, change must be gradual; a rapid change that disregards people’s concerns and anxieties is more likely to encounter a lot of resistance from the people that are affected by the change program, thereby leading to failure in the end. Important aspects that need to be put into focus before embarking on any change initiative include the purpose of the change, relevance of the proposed change as well as assessment of the change progress. Additionally, change masters in the organization need to be clear about the people that will be affected by the change, possible reactions that might be triggered by implementation of the change initiative, the amount of change that the organization can achieve singly and the aspects of the change that must be outsourced. As noted before, change can be so unsettling, thus, change masters need to explain every aspect of change to great extents and manage it carefully for the people affected to deal with the change effectively. In that respect, change management has everything to do with ensuring that all the people that are affected by change agree with it, or at least understand that it is necessary for the survival of the organization in the future, in addition to ensuring that these people have a chance to participate in the implementation of the change. In as much as the sole responsibility of managing change initiatives is with the management, which must actively interpret, communicate, as well as enable the change process, the change itself must involve the people affected by it rather than being imposed on them. 3.0. Change Management Process Organizational changes need to be implemented in a smooth and structured manner to ensure that they are implemented successfully to achieve the desired outcomes (Wheeler 1992, p.32); a number of forces in the global business environment including, but not limited to globalization and the rapid technological changes taking shape today have yielded a constantly evolving global business environment. Most remarkably, the ongoing technological advancements have rapidly revolutionized the global business environment thereby greatly transforming the nature of high performance business operations thereby premeditating the need for change and change management as the most fundamental aspects of management today (Dervitsiotis 1998, p.109). Organizations have no choice but to adjust to, and to become comfortable with change since the capacity to adapt to and to manage organizational change is the single most fundamental survival attribute at the workplace in the 21st century (Church, Siegal, Javitch, Waclawski & Burke 1996, p.25). Organizational change should be desirable for any organization, particularly because a timely and successful response to change in the global business environment can yield remarkable competitive advantage for the organization, thereby enhancing profits and market share. The process of change in the organization must first begin by establishing the prevailing organizational situation through a systemic diagnosis to determine not only the need for, but also the capability to change. The change management plan clearly stipulates the objectives, content, as well as the overall process of change while the management of the change contributes to aligning people’s expectations with the change, communicating the change process itself, as well as integrating the various groups of people at the workplace and decision makers in the change process. In order to design the most effective change strategies, the change management process exploits numerous performance metrics including operational efficiency, financial results, commitment levels of the leadership, as well as the effectiveness of communication strategies in addition to the perceived need for change. According to the Prosci’s research, the change management can be subdivided into three main phases including preparing for change, managing change as well as reinforcing change in that order. Whereas the first phase entails preparation, assessment and strategy development, the second one describes the detailed planning and implementation of change initiatives; the third phase of reinforcing change deals with collection of information, execution of corrective action, in addition to appraisal of the progress that has already been made towards the successful implementation of change. Employee feedback in response to change implementation and involvement in the same are very crucial for success while the recognition of and appraisal of early wins in the process of change implementation are also necessary to cement and reinforce the organizational change. 4.0. The Change initiative At the present workplace environment, the so-called “change manager” or “change agents” are common organizational roles and some corporations have whole departments dedicated to the task of prompting and leading change initiatives at the workplace (Church, Siegal, Javitch, Waclawski & Burke 1996, p.25). Our organization was seeking to achieve further growth through the application of new technologies in the creation of more strong and differentiated customer experience. The change initiative involved at the workplace was so immense and overwhelming thereby potentially intimidating to the members of the organization, particularly because it implied that people will have no choice but to be technology-savvy to remain relevant at the workplace or risk losing their spot for lack of sufficient expertise in the application of technology. The leadership proposed to implement these changes in the routine operations of the organization to enhance the quality of work output, the efficiency of work processes, as well as the level of customer satisfaction, thereby enhancing the overall organizational performance in the industry while widening its market share in the highly competitive global business environment respectively. The management argued that new technologies have great potential to transform the business because they are fast and cost-effective (Stoltzfus, Stohl & Seibold 2011, p.349); thus, given the increasing competition from industry rivals, the only way of sustaining growth would be to leverage the new technologies in generating competitive advantage that would enable the organization to win competition. 5.0. Leadership of the change initiative In pursuing the change initiative, the management recognized that flexibility is crucial for establishing the organizational capacity to respond to environmental changes in the highly complex and dynamic global business environment (Dunford, Cuganesan, Grant, Palmer, Beaumont & Steele 2013, p.83). In the implementation of change at the organization, the leadership of the change initiative undertook three specific activities including communicating, mobilizing, as well as evaluating the change process. Concerning communicating the change, the leaders undertook numerous activities in establishing the case for change, to ensure the rest of the people at the workplace shared in the change vision. After communicating the change initiative, leadership embarked on mobilization to gain buy-in from the workers, to support and accept the proposed changes; finally, the leadership monitored and assessed the impact of implementation of the change initiative. These three key activities undertaken by leadership were very crucial for the implementation of the change initiative and were carried out with utmost precision and caution since any mistakes in the course of carrying them out would have been detrimental to the progress of the change. These three sets of activities may not be totally representative of the complexity of the change implementation process but are the key categories of the activities that were undertaken by management in the management of the change process; the intricate relationship between these three categories is visible in the leadership of the change initiative at the workplace. 5.1. Communicating need for change Communicating the need for change is very vital for the successful implementation of change initiatives in the organization, particularly because it helps in destabilizing the deeply entrenched status quo at the workplace while creating a vivid painting of the desired new state of the organization (Kalyani & Sahoo 2011, p.280). The leadership was very effective in its communication strategies since it was able to build a strong case for the desired change thereby helping the rest of the people at the workplace to view the desired future state of the organization. The leadership approached communication in the change initiative as a strategy for explaining to the rest of the people in the organization why it was necessary for behaviours and routines at the workplace to change. Similarly, the leadership explored communication as a means of portraying the desired new state of the organization in the future, and helping the rest of the people to visualize the proposed change vision. Effective communicators are able to foster individual and group participation in the change initiative by explicitly outlying the whole change process, to get people to share and delight in the vision for change by helping them to picture the desired new state of the organization (Julie, Mattia, Metin, Anne-Claire and Jeffrey 2010, p.424). The leadership recognized that the proposed change initiative foreshadowed considerable threats to individuals’ self-esteem, confusion, as well as anxiety at the workplace, particularly due to the uncertainties that are associated with the proposed changes in behaviours and routines at the organization. In that respect, the leadership was able to anticipate the emotional reaction of all the stakeholders involved in the change process while responding effectively to those reactions through appropriate steps in the management of the change initiative. The leadership was able to leverage on the concepts of interpersonal interaction to guide its thinking and action since it understood the interpersonal dimension involved in communicating change at the workplace. By doing so, the leadership was not only able to explain to the rest of the stakeholders affected by the change initiative that it was necessary, but also to explain the nature of the change and how it would affect them in the end, thereby reducing anxiety and confusion due to uncertainties portended by the proposed organizational change. Individual attitudes towards change are very crucial for the successful implementation of any change process since they do shape people’s perspectives and views regarding the proposed change initiative, thus, communicating the change does help in realigning the change to the organizational culture and practice (Siriphattrasophon & Trang 2011, p.273). 5.2. Mobilization of others The leadership undertook several activities to get the members of the organization not only to support, but also to accept the proposed change and to inculcate it in their daily routines at the workplace. The leadership noted that individuals at the workplace possess not only different personal objectives, but also different professional objectives, which eventually results to the highly varying and polarized views or outlooks concerning the proposed change initiative; different views of the stakeholders frustrate mobilization of people in supporting and accepting the proposed change initiative both in part and in whole. Whereas change may result to potential gains for some members of the organization hence acquiring their buy-in due to the high stakes involved, it can also potentially result to challenges for some, thereby prompting resistance to change at the workplace (Julie, Mattia, Metin, Anne-Claire and Jeffrey 2010, p.424). Nonetheless, effective leadership must appreciate and value communication as a means of gaining buy-in and support from all the members of the organization that are affected by the proposed change initiative. Similarly, effective communication serves to create room for individual as well as group participation as well as request for the contributions of management heads in the organization towards the proposed change initiative. The leadership approached mobilization as a tool for building the capacity for people to accept and support the proposed new course of action; the leadership recognized organizational members’ commitment to as well as their cooperation with the planned course of action as crucial ingredients to the successful implementation of the change initiative (Hila & Tzafrir 2011, p.662). To facilitate the mobilization process, the leadership both appealed to the peoples’ cooperation and initiated the appropriate organizational processes as well as systems that promoted the establishment of that same cooperation. The leadership exploited both the appeals to ethos and logos in gaining buy-in from the various members of the organization; for instance, taking the person-oriented stance, the leadership showed considerable regard for the rest of the people that were going to be affected by the change initiative by managing their feelings and emotions effectively. The leadership was able to marshal the commitment and support of all the members of the organization towards the proposed change initiative while realigning their varied outlooks to the desired new state of the organization since it was effective at communication and the management of emotions. 5.3. Evaluating the change process The mere implementation of change is not enough and effective leaders of change initiatives must go an extra mile to evaluate the extent to which the desired outcomes in the change process are being achieved (Julie, Mattia, Metin, Anne-Claire and Jeffrey 2010, p.425). In order to promote the institutionalization of the change initiative at the workplace, the leadership embarked on routine evaluation and assessment of the extent to which the members of the organization were implementing the new routines, practices, as well as behaviours in the change initiative process. Compliance with the routines, practices, or behaviours that the change initiative that are being targeted by the change initiative is key in ensuring that the proposed change becomes inculcated at the workplace and becomes a part of the organizational culture (Roberto, & Levesque 2005, p.53). Nonetheless, evaluation of the impact of the change initiative on the performance of the organization is crucial to assess the need for remedial or corrective measures to get the change process back on track. However, the leadership did not pay close attention to the evaluation of all the activities involved in the implementation of the change initiative due to its great focus on the person-oriented activities. 6.0. Resistance to the change initiative The proposition to apply new technologies in the operations at the workplace was met with a subtle yet remarkable level of resistance from the members of the organization and the change leadership had to go extra miles in winning their buy-in and support for the proposed change initiative. The change initiative was a huge leap from the conventional organizational way of doing things, which had defined the culture of the organization for many years and even though the new technologies would eventually reduce the strain and workload of the members of the organization thereby increasing convenience at the workplace, it still posed a number of threats. Psychologists have found three fundamental human needs including the need for control, inclusion as well as the need for openness to be at the heart of the reactions of members of the organization to change initiatives (Federer 2012, p.47). The crucial of all the concerns that were raised was the potential loss of jobs done by a large proportion of the members of the organization as the technologies promised to replace human labour by taking up most of the tasks once performed by individuals, which inevitably meant that many people would be rendered jobless. The anecdotal evidence of the role of technologies in prompting job cuts is everywhere today but perhaps the most illustrious example can be found in the case of industrial automation in the 1980s, when industrial robotics came on manufacturing sites. Robots and advanced automation is a common phenomenon in the global manufacturing powerhouses such as the US and China and statistically, fewer people work in manufacturing plants today than before because machines have taken up a large proportion of the routine tasks that were once performed by human workforces (Rotman, 2013). Generally, computers have taken up a large proportion of the routine work at the workplaces including clerical duties, bookkeeping, and repetitive production tasks in manufacturing, which implies that many jobs have been lost with the introduction of computer technologies at the workplace. In view of these anecdotal evidences of the potential threat of job losses with the adoption of new technologies at the workforce, it was not strange that the members’ of the organization reacted unfavourably to the proposed change initiative since it would endanger their positions at the workplace. Additionally, the application of new technologies at the workplace encountered resistance since it implied that the members’ of the organization would have to be competent in the use of the new technologies to remain functional and relevant for the organization since the new technologies would be applied in almost all the tasks and process that were once done manually. In this respect, the idea of new technologies posed a new threat to the self-esteem of the members of the organization who were left feeling inadequate and unsecure due to their inability to cope with the intimidating workplace environment due to automation of tasks and processes. The proposed change initiative prompted a lot of anxiety and confusion at the workplace since a large proportion of the people were unsure about their future at the organization due to the uncertainties triggered by the change initiative in general. For instance, many people feared for what would eventually happen to their jobs with the introduction of the new technologies at the workplace and whether they would be able to apply the new technologies in their tasks effectively given that the new technologies were unfamiliar to them. Nonetheless, it was clear that the organization was going to retrain the members of the organization on how to handle the new technologies in the execution of tasks in its push for the institutionalization of the change initiative at the workplace. 7.0. Recommendations for the future In view of the turbulent course of the change initiative at the organization, a number of lessons can be drawn to improve the implementation of change initiatives in similar circumstances in the future. Firstly, the change process fails, particularly because leadership does not focus adequately on front-line managers and secondly because it does not focus the front-line managers on the specific tasks that need to be accomplished for the organization to achieve its desired outcomes (Leonard and Coltea, 2013). In similar circumstances in the future, the leadership should focus on the front-line managers, particularly because they are often overwhelmed with dozens of high-priority from higher levels of management and this makes it harder for workers to know what tasks to prioritize in order to deliver the change outcomes. Leadership should provide a clear leadership and direction for the front-line managers in the implementation of the change initiative through the establishment of change management principles and frameworks that will help the front officers in planning and launching the change initiative (Smith 1998, p.46). The front-line management is the most crucial point in the implementation of change because it is directly in charge of the organizational workforce that is expected to implement the change initiative to transform the customer experience while helping to meet the organizational outcomes. In that respect, the front-line managers should never be neglected in any change initiative and leadership should always strive to focus their messages at the managers and ensure that those messages resonate with the managers needs too. Part of the tasks of the front-line managers include interacting with senior leaders and change leaders in the organizational echelon, focusing the frontline personnel on specific actions and holding them accountable for the outcomes gained from those particular actions. Furthermore, the frontline managers are responsible for providing feedback to the senior management as well as change leaders on the progress made as well as the barriers encountered in the pursuit of success; additionally, these frontline managers play a very significant role in the establishment of remedial or corrective ways of overcoming the barriers. Leadership should focus both on the person-oriented and the task-oriented actions in the process of implementing change initiatives since the task-oriented actions provide a significant framework along which the implementation of change initiatives can be evaluated. Leadership must play an active role in ensuring that members of the organization comply with the new work routines until the change is institutionalized at the workplace; to do so, leadership must establish measures that are based on formal systems of measuring the impact of change initiatives on task performance. 8.0. Conclusion Overall, the leadership of the change initiative undertook three specific activities including communicating, mobilizing, as well as evaluating the change process in the implementation of change at the organization. The leadership communicated the change effectively by undertaking numerous activities in establishing the case for change, to ensure the rest of the people at the workplace shared in the change vision. Apart from communicating the change initiative effectively, the leadership also successfully mobilized to gain buy-in from the members of the organization, to support and accept the proposed change initiative to transform the customer experience. Finally, the leadership made some considerable attempts to monitor and assess the impact of implementation of the change initiative at the workplace but the leadership did not pay close attention to the evaluation of all the activities involved in the implementation of the change initiative due to its great focus on the person-oriented activities. Evidently, the change process was rough, particularly because leadership did not pay close attention on front-line managers and secondly because it did not focus the front-line managers on the specific tasks that needed to be accomplished for the organization to achieve its desired outcomes. In similar circumstances in the future, the leadership should focus enough on the front-line managers, particularly because they are the ones directly in charge of the frontline employees who are responsible for implementing the actions of the change initiative. In that respect, focusing on frontline managers will enable them to highlight specific tasks for workers to know what tasks to prioritize in order to deliver the change outcomes thereby leading to the successful implementation of the change process. 9.0. References Galpin, T. (1996). Connecting culture to organizational change. HRMagazine, 41(3), 84. Shepard, M. (2003). "Commanding Change: War Winning Strategies for Organizational Change", Military Review, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 92. Jacobs, G., Arjen, V.W. & Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013), "A theoretical framework of organizational change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 772-792. Beugelsdijk, S., Slangen, A. & Marco, V.H. (2002). "Shapes of organizational change: The case of Heineken Inc", Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 311-326. Fernandez, S. & Rainey, H.G. (2006). "Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector", Public administration review, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 168-176. Wheeler, S. (1992). "Guidelines for Managing Organizational Change", Manufacturing Systems, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 32. Church, A.H., Siegal, W., Javitch, M., Waclawski, J. & Burke, W.W. (1996). "Managing organizational change: What you dont know might hurt you", Career Development International, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 25. Dervitsiotis, K.N. (1998). "The challenge of managing organizational change: Exploring the relationship of re-engineering, developing learning organizations and total quality management", Total Quality Management, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 109-122. Stoltzfus, K., Stohl, C. & Seibold, D.R. (2011). "Managing organizational change: paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences", Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 349-367. Kalyani, M. & Sahoo, M.P. (2011). "Human Resource Strategy: A Tool of Managing Change for Organizational Excellence", International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 280-286. Federer, D.P. (2012). "Managing Organizational Change", On Wall Street, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 47. Siriphattrasophon, S. & Trang, N.T. (2011). "Managing organizational change in public services: Evidence from the energy sector in Thailand", International Journal of Arts & Sciences, vol. 4, no. 22, pp. 273-284. Smith, D. (1998). "Invigorating change initiatives", Management review, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 45-48. Hila, C.B. & Tzafrir, S.S. (2011). "Consultant-client relationship: One of the secrets to effective organizational change?",Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 662-679. Dunford, R., Cuganesan, S., Grant, D., Palmer, I., Beaumont, R. & Steele, C. (2013). ""Flexibility" as the rationale for organizational change: a discourse perspective", Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 83-97. Roberto, M.A. & Levesque, L.C. (2005). "The Art of Making Change Initiatives Stick", MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 53. Oswick, C., Grant, D., Michelson, G. & Wailes, N. (2005). "Looking forwards: discursive directions in organizational change",Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 383-390. Julie, B., Mattia G., Metin S., Anne-Claire P., and Jeffrey A. (2010). Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly 21: 422–438. Leonard, D. and Coltea, C. (2013). Most Change Initiatives Fail -- But They Dont Have To. Available at: http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/162707/change-initiatives-fail-don.aspx Rotman, D. (2013). How Technology Is Destroying Jobs. technology review Available at: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/ Read More